The larger part of that funding is in the hands of the Government and is a variable dependent on each council’s degree of co-operation with the Government’s recommendations and requirements.

Councillors can be justified in this same approach to their responsibilities. They might, though, also consider their responsibility to stand up for the interest of the people they represent.

New housing is such a matter. The Hampton Court Station/Jolly Boatman site is available for development, but only to a limited extent for housing. The present projected development far exceeds this limit, as did the previous one now withdrawn. The limit is set in Elmbridge Borough Council’s own planning brief for the site.

It must be a great temptation to the officers, and to councillors, to accept such proposals and planning applications as confirming to house building requirements set by higher authority. It avoids risk to future funding.

It also helps with solving another problem — the high percentage of these dwellings required to be classified as “affordable”.

Elsewhere, this problem is solved by developers, who submit planning applications covering only small numbers of dwellings at a time, and thus gain exception.

In this large development, the developer has already spent money. He will expect a good return. To abandon any part of his proposal, he will doubtless expect compensation, which EBC will be in no position to provide.

All is not lost, however. Others, beside the people of the Moleseys and those on the other side of the river, are interested — English Heritage, Thames Riverside Strategy, and Royal Palaces, for a few. They may not have sufficient funds of their own, but they might have the power to persuade others.

Meanwhile, can we persuade our councillors, particularly those on the relevant planning sub-committee and the committee itself, to enforce the already existing planning brief?

Please, if you wish to avoid five or six barrack blocks of flats at Hampton Court Station, lend your support to the campaign.